John Roberts and the National Security Stateby Mike Whitney
www.dissidentvoice.org
July 25, 2005

John
Roberts is the perfect stealth candidate for the Supreme Court. Scrubbed
and square-jawed, he should be able to muscle his way through the Senate
proceedings without breaking a sweat. The Democratic leadership has
already rolled over, so there’s little doubt that the neocons’ favorite
Trojan Horse will soon be taking his place next to the Brothers Grimm,
Scalia and Thomas, when the court resumes a few months from today.

You have to hand it
to the Republicans, they know how to rule with a sledge hammer. They come
to Washington with bared teeth and don’t mind breaking glass or
overturning the political ox cart if it moves the ball further down the
field. The Democrats are simply no match; Lieberman, Dodd, Clinton and the
insufferable blowhard Joe Biden, a coterie of puffy-chested backslappers
who invariably capitulate on every matter of principle. Bill Frist would
be doing us all a great favor if he ran a skip-loader through the
Democrats front office and dumped the lot of them in the D.C. landfill.

The abortion red
herring is bound to take center stage in the upcoming hearings.
Regrettably, the issue has become the cornerstone of liberal politics in
America, the litmus test for all progressive political aspirants. It’s a
pity, especially now that right-wing ideologues are using it to conceal
their larger goal of subverting the Bill of Rights. The abortion issue has
been wrapped around the neck of liberals like a millstone for 30 years,
alienating working class people and pushing them head first to the
welcoming arms of the war party. It will be difficult to win them back.

Does a woman have a
right to choose?

Of course. Only now,
Bush loyalists are feverishly dismantling everything in their path from
supervised elections to the separation of powers while liberal groups
focus all their energy on one issue. What good is Roe if the rest
of the Constitution is in tatters?

Don’t worry,
Republicans get pregnant just as frequently as Democrats. If Jenna Bush
got knocked up tomorrow by an underpaid box boy at 7-11, George and Laura
would be down at the local clinic faster than you can say RU-40. The
entire scam is designed to divert attention from the larger issue of
presidential authority, which Roberts believes should be “unlimited”. In
fact, that was the quid pro quo that sent him post haste to his new digs
at the high court.

The 4th Circuit
Court of Appeals decided a critical case last Friday that will change the
political dynamic in this country for decades to come. Roberts was one of
three judges who unanimously ruled that the president is not constrained
by international law. “The court ruled that the Geneva Conventions ‘do not
create judicially enforceable rights’ -- that is, accusations of a
violation may not be brought in a lawsuit.” (New York Times)

What? “Do not create
judicially enforceable rights”? Then they are not really laws or
restrictions at all, just altruistic pleasantries dreamed up by
international idealists.

To put this in
perspective, consider Article VI of the Constitution which makes treaties
“the supreme Law of the Land.” The Senate ratified the 1949 Geneva
Convention, making its provisions binding rules of law.

Article 5 of the
1949 Geneva Conventions requires that when there is any doubt about
captive combatants' status, they are entitled to the Convention's
protection “until such time as their status has been determined by a
competent tribunal.” The obvious intention of last year’s Supreme Court
ruling was to allow detainees to file habeas corpus petitions in federal
courts within the US. The 4th Circuit has ignored this injunction by
suggesting that the president is a “competent tribunal,” a comical
interpretation of the Supremes’ ruling by any standard.

The Court’s decision
reflects Attorney General Alberto Gonzales belief that “The president’s
authority under the laws of our nation to try enemy combatants is a vital
part of the global war on terror.” This is a subtle way of saying that the
president is above the law and can do as he pleases. In fact, neither
Gonzales nor Roberts believes that the prisoners in American custody have
the right to due process. Rather, they tacitly endorse the current regime
of endless detention without charges and without any hope of legal
recourse.

Neal Katyal, defense
attorney in the same case said, “Today’s ruling, places absolute trust in
the president, unchecked by the Constitution, statutes of Congress and
long-standing treaties ratified by the Senate of the United States.”

Katyal got it right.
The court ruling confers absolute authority on the president to decide the
most sensitive issues of personal liberty without any legal constraints.
This turns the law on its head by allowing the arbitrary willfulness of
one man to take precedent over any objective standard of judgment. As far
as the inmates of Guantanamo are concerned, the law begins and ends with
George Bush.

Roberts and his
colleagues on the lower court argue that “Congress authorized the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force” against anyone who
abetted the Sept 11 attacks and granted Bush the authority to act to
prevent international acts of terrorism.”

True, but Congress
certainly didn’t intend for the president to overturn established treaty
obligations and long held civil liberties statutes according to his own
discretion. The Circuit Court’s reading of the law is a slap in the face
to Sandra Day O’ Connor, who just months ago said:

We have long since
made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when
it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens. Even the war power does
not remove constitutional limitations safeguarding essential liberties.
The Great Writ of habeas corpus is an important judicial check on the
Executive's discretion in the realm of detentions

. . .

It would turn our
system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could
not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his
detention by his government, simply because the Executive opposes making
available such a challenge.

In fact, the 4th
Circuit’s ruling issues Bush the “blank check” he was looking for,
negating the presumption of innocence, depriving prisoners of due process,
and sweeping away any responsibility for the president to adhere to
international treaties on human rights. It’s no wonder Roberts was so
generously rewarded.

Democrats may be
chirping about the “civility and intelligence” of Bush’s new candidate,
but Roberts is a judicial wolf in sheep’s clothing. He’s already shown his
eagerness to rubber-stamp the expanded powers of the Emperor-in-Chief and
we can assume that he won’t hesitate to legislate from the bench. His
place on the high court will solidify the coup that began in year 2000,
shifting the tectonic plates of American political life to a hard-right
position. The cabal in Washington is on a fast track for removing the
last, feeble protections that safeguard the citizen from the intrusive
powers of the government. Roberts is just the latest brick in the wall of
the National Security State.